DOCSLIB.ORG

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology House of Representatives One Hundred Sixteenth Congress

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology House of Representatives One Hundred Sixteenth Congress MAINTAINING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 6, 2019 Serial No. 116–4 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 35–402PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma, DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois Ranking Member SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California, BILL POSEY, Florida Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania BRIAN BABIN, Texas LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas ANDY BIGGS, Arizona HALEY STEVENS, Michigan ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma NEAL DUNN, Florida MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas STEVE COHEN, Tennessee TROY BALDERSON, Ohio JERRY MCNERNEY, California PETE OLSON, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida BILL FOSTER, Illinois JIM BAIRD, Indiana DON BEYER, Virginia VACANCY CHARLIE CRIST, Florida VACANCY SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KATIE HILL, California BEN MCADAMS, Utah JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia (II) CONTENTS March 6, 2019 Page Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 2 Opening Statements Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman, Com- mittee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 8 Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 Statement by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 12 Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14 Witnesses: Dr. Marcia McNutt, President, National Academy of Sciences Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 27 Written Statement ............................................................................................ 29 Dr. Mehmood Khan, Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, PepsiCo; and Chair, Council on Competitiveness Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 36 Written Statement ............................................................................................ 38 Discussion ................................................................................................................. 50 Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions Dr. Marcia McNutt, President, National Academy of Sciences ........................... 82 Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh .............................. 87 Dr. Mehmood Khan, Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, PepsiCo; and Chair, Council on Competitiveness ............................................................. 94 Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record Document submitted by Representative Michael Cloud, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ......................................................................................... 102 (III) MAINTAINING U.S. LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2019 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, WASHINGTON, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m., in room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding. (1) 2 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HEARING CHARTER Maintaining U.S. Leadership in Science and Technology Wednesday, March 6, 2019 2:00p.m.- 4:00p.m. 2318 Rayburn House Office Building Purpose On Wednesday, March 6, 2019, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee will hold a hearing to assess the current state of U.S. science and technology (S&T) in the global context and what is needed to maintain U.S. leadership. The hearing will examine the role of federal investments in S&T; partnerships between academia, government and industry; the future of U.S. research universities; STEM education and the U.S. STEM workforce; and increasing international competition in areas of emerging technology as well as opportunities for increased international collaboration on pressing global challenges. Witnesses • Dr. Marcia MeN utt, President. National Academy of Sciences • Dr. Patrick Gallagher, Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh • Dr. Mehmood Khan, Vice Chairman and Chief Scientific Officer, PepsiCo; and Chair, Council on Competitiveness Ovcrarching Questions • Why is support for science, technology, and STEM education so critical to America's prosperity? What are the principal challenges the United States faces in these areas as it competes in the global economy? • What is the role of the federal government in ensuring a thriving S&T enterprise? What is the role of the private sector? How can government and the private sector best partner to advance U.S. S&T? • What are the benefits, risks, and challenges to international collaboration in S&T? • What specific steps should the federal government take to ensure that the United States remains the world leader in science, innovation, and job creation? 3 Status of R&D and STEM Education - by the Numbers U.S. investments in R&D In 2015, the US performed a total of$491.5 billion of R&D. While the business sector is focused on applied research and development, the federal government has the largest role in basic research. In 2015, basic research comprised $83.5 billion (16.9 percent) oftotal R&D expenditures. Of that total, 27 percent was funded by the business sector compared to 44 percent by the Federal government. The business sector accounted for just over one-half of applied research, with more than one-third funded by the Federal government. In terms of trends in U.S. R&D expenditures, in the seven-year period between 2008-2015, U.S R&D grew at a rate of 1.4 percent annually while GOP grew at a rate of 1.5 percent annually. The preceding ten-year period (1998-2008) featured average annual growth of 3.6 percent for R&D expenditures while GOP grew 2.2 percent annually. Universities performed $41 billion in basic research in 2017- nearly half of all basic research that year. Nearly $22 billion of that was federally funded. Only 5.3 percent was funded by business. Universities also performed $17.5 billion in applied research. Again, more than half of that was federally funded and only 6.3 percent came from business. While there has been a recent uptick in industry support for university research, universities have increasingly relied on foundations and their own institutional funds to support their research. Decades ago, tech companies invested significantly more in basic research. The examples most commonly cited are Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Nine Nobel awards were given for work completed at Bell Labs, but Bell Labs began its final decline in the 2000s and was shuttered altogether by 2008. Similarly, Xerox PARC no longer exists as such and its successor organization is focused on technology development with short-term returns. Company investment in internal basic research has increased somewhat in the last few years after the steep decline of the 1990s.ln 2016 the total was $19.1 billion, compared to $16.3 billion just the year before. Total corporate basic research performance from all sources was $24.6 billion in 2016- that includes federally funded research at companies. However, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry alone accounts for one-third of corporate basic research. Similarly, philanthropic support for research has been on the rise, but it is overwhelmingly focused on biomedical research. There are a few tech companies, including Google and Uber, who have been investing heavily in basic and applied research, internally and at universities. Their scientists do publish some of their research findings, but much of their research is proprietary. There are many partnerships between the government, universities, and the private sector, and the Science Committee often explores the nature of those partnership models - what works, what can be expanded, and what new models may be viable. However, those partnerships require a sustained commitment by all parties. Private sector money most often comes because the federal money is there. The private sector relies on the quality and imprimatur of the federal science agencies' merit-review processes to identify the most promising research. Federal Government Investments in R&D Support for R&D as a percentage of the nondefense discretionary budget has held mostly steady at just over 10 percent since the 1990's, but the total size of the nondefense discretionary budget has been under pressure. Under the 2018 budget deal, that budget has increased from 2017 levels 2 4 but is still below the 2010 level. The budget caps required under the 2011 budget deal magnify the challenge for
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Action. Power. Freedom. FY 2018 Annual Report Action
    Action. Power. Freedom. FY 2018 Annual Report Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Freedom. Action. Power. Freedom. Action. Power. This is our moment— “and I truly believe in us. Because we–NARAL, our members, our extended community–have all of the ingredients necessary to win this fight. This is the fight that NARAL, and all of you, were made for.” —Ilyse G. Hogue, President 2 FY 2018 Annual Report Contents A Message From Our President .............................................................................. 5 Action. Power. Freedom. .................................................................................................6 Financial Overview ...........................................................................................................14 A Message From Our Board Chairs...................................................................19 Boards of Directors & Executive Staff .........................................................20
    [Show full text]
  • The Behavioral Sciences: Essays in Honor of GEORGE A. LUNDBERG
    The Behavioral Sciences: Essays in Honor of George A. Lundberg The Behavioral Sciences: Essays in Honor of GEORGE A. LUNDBERG edited by ALFRED DE GRAZIA RoLLoHANDY E. C. HARWOOD PAUL KURTZ published by The Behavioral Research Council Great Barrington, Massachusetts Copyright © 1968 by Behavioral Research Council Preface This volume of collected essays is dedicated to the memory of George A. Lundberg. It is fitting that this volume is published under the auspices of the Behavioral Research Council. George Lundberg, as its first President, and one of its founding members, was dedicated to the goals of the Behavioral Research Council: namely, the encouragement and development of behavioral science research and its application to the problems of men in society. He has been a constant inspiration to behavioral research not only in sociology, where he was considered to be a classic figure and a major influence but in the behavioral sciences in general. Part One of this volume includes papers on George Lundberg and his scientific work, particularly in the field of sociology. Orig­ inally read at a special conference of the Pacific Sociological Association (March 30-April 1, 1967), the papers are here pub­ lished by permission of the Society. Part Two contains papers not directly on George Lundberg but on themes and topics close to his interest. They are written by members of the Behavioral Research Council. We hope that this volume is a token, however small, of the pro­ found contribution that George Lundberg has made to the de­ velopment of the behavioral sciences. We especially wish to thank the contributors of the George A.
    [Show full text]
  • Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: the Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril
    Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril Michael Matheny, Sonoo Thadaney Israni, Mahnoor Ahmed, and Danielle Whicher, Editors WASHINGTON, DC NAM.EDU PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE • 500 Fifth Street, NW • WASHINGTON, DC 20001 NOTICE: This publication has undergone peer review according to procedures established by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Publication by the NAM worthy of public attention, but does not constitute endorsement of conclusions and recommendationssignifies that it is the by productthe NAM. of The a carefully views presented considered in processthis publication and is a contributionare those of individual contributors and do not represent formal consensus positions of the authors’ organizations; the NAM; or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data to Come Copyright 2019 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Suggested citation: Matheny, M., S. Thadaney Israni, M. Ahmed, and D. Whicher, Editors. 2019. Artificial Intelligence in Health Care: The Hope, the Hype, the Promise, the Peril. NAM Special Publication. Washington, DC: National Academy of Medicine. PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs “Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do.” --GOETHE PREPUBLICATION COPY - Uncorrected Proofs ABOUT THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE The National Academy of Medicine is one of three Academies constituting the Nation- al Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies). The Na- tional Academies provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • STEM Education for the Future
    STEM 1 STEM STEM 3 STEM SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS Dr. Margaret Honey (Chair) | Dr. Bruce Alberts Dr. Hyman Bass | Dr. Carlos Castillo | Dr. Okhee Lee Dr. Marilyn M. Strutchens | Dr. Laurel Vermillion Dr. Francisco Rodriguez (Ex-Officio Member) NSF LIAISON Dr. Robin Wright (Division Director, Undergraduate Education) EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Dr. Alexandra Medina-Borja (NSF EHR/DUE) 4 STEM “All citizens can contribute to our nation’s progress and vibrancy. To be prepared for the STEM careers of the future, all learners must have an equitable opportunity to acquire foundational STEM knowledge. The STEM Education of the Future brings together our advanced understanding of how people learn with modern technology to create more personalized learning experiences, to inspire learning, and to foster creativity from an early age. It will unleash and harness the curiosity of young people and adult learners across the United States, cultivating a culture of innovation and inquiry, and ensuring our nation remains the global leader in science and technology discovery and competitiveness.” A VISION STATEMENT FOR STEM EDUCATION OF THE FUTURE 5 6 PREFACE Rapid technological advancements and societal changes are our daily reality. While the future of work, the economy, and society is uncertain, one thing is not: To maintain the nation’s leadership in science and technology discovery, we must create an approach to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education that prepares and advances the U.S. for this future. Experts agree that science, technology, engineering and math will drive new innovations across disciplines, making use of computational power to accelerate discoveries and finding creative ways to work across disciplinary silos to solve big challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • American Geophysical Union Re
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD 20771 September 12, 2016 Reply to Attn of: 140 TO: Distribution FROM: 140/Chief Counsel SUBJECT: Determination Regarding Attendance ofNASA Employees at American Geophysical Union Reception The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a non-profit organization under section 50l(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, is hosting a reception on September 14, 2016, at their facility in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the reception is to honor and recognize outgoing AGU president Marcia McNutt and her new role as President of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Approximately 70 guests have been invited to the reception from academia, Federal agencies, AGU, NAS, and colleagues of Dr. McNutt. The estimated cost per person of the reception is $75. Attendance at the reception will allow NASA employees an opportunity to discuss with other guests issues concerning NASA's programs and missions. Based on the above, I find that the event meets the requirements of a ''widely attended gathering" as defined in 5 CFR 2635.204(g). I further find that there is an Agency interest in having NASA employees attend this event. Accordingly, NASA employees whose duties do not substantially affect AGU or a majority of its members, including NASA employees who are in non-career positions for which they are required to sign an ethics pledge under Executive Order 13490, may accept an invitation for free attendance to the reception for themselves and a guest. However, NASA employees whose duties substantially affect AGU or a majority of its members, for instance by way of procurement duties, should seek an individual determination regarding participation in ~ event from tl,leir local ethics counselor.
    [Show full text]
  • February 26, 2020 Chairman David Skaggs Co-Chairwoman Allison
    February 26, 2020 Chairman David Skaggs Co-Chairwoman Allison Hayward Office of Congressional Ethics 425 3rd Street, SW Suite 1110 Washington, DC 20024 Dear Chairman Skaggs and Co-Chairwoman Hayward: We write to request that the Office of Congressional Ethics (“OCE”) investigate whether Representative Devin Nunes is receiving free legal services in violation of the Rules of the House of Representatives (“House rules”). Specifically, Representative Nunes retained an attorney who represents him in several defamation lawsuits in various courts where he seeks a total of nearly $1 billion in damages. House rules prohibit a Member from receiving free legal services, unless the Member establishes a Legal Expense Fund (“LEF”). According to the House Legislative Resource Center, Representative Nunes has not filed any of the required reports to establish an LEF. The relevant facts detailed below establish that the OCE Board should authorize an investigation of Representative Nunes. Representative Nunes’s overt involvement with the highly-publicized lawsuits threatens to establish a precedent that the Legal Expense Fund (“LEF”) regulations no longer apply to Members. Although Representative Nunes is entitled to legal representation and he may pursue any legal action to protect and defend his interests, he must comply with House rules. An OCE investigation will preserve Representative Nunes’s legal right to counsel while upholding well-established House rules and precedent. House Rules Prohibit Members from Receiving Discounted or Free Legal Services A Member of the House of Representatives “may not knowingly accept a gift” with limited exceptions.1 A “gift” is defined to include “a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Social Context in the Production of Scientific Knowledge
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2015 The Role of Social Context in the Production of Scientific Knowledge Kristen Lynn Beard [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Beard, Kristen Lynn, "The Role of Social Context in the Production of Scientific nowledgeK " (2015). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1852 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Role of Social Context in the Production of Scientific Knowledge Kristen Lynn Beard The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Chancellor’s Honors Program Department of Philosophy Undergraduate Thesis Submitted December 8, 2014 Thesis Advisor: Dr. Nora Berenstain Beard 1 Model 1: The Influence of Social Context on the Scientific Method Beard 2 Introduction: Scientific Knowledge as Both Social and Rational A person may believe that a certain theory is true and explain that he does so, for instance, because it is the best explanation he has of the facts or because it gives him the most satisfying world picture. This does not make him irrational, but I take it to be part of empiricism to disdain such reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scientific Enterprise That Is Open by Default and Equitable by Design: the Time Is
    A Scientific Enterprise that is Open by Default and Equitable by Design: The Time is Now research without delay or cost to the public. Open Lessons from COVID-19 Science is a collection of policies, practices, and The pandemic brought researchers from across the norms that empower scientists to do just that, by country and the world together to build open making research AI-ready and available under an systems for scientific collaboration - like the open license to accelerate discovery and improve CORD-19 database to quickly share research lives. Without open systems of knowledge sharing articles and data - that have been key to our and collaboration, federally-funded research falls pandemic response including the fastest short of its promise to leverage investments in development of a vaccine in human history. Prior science for public benefit. to the pandemic, federally-funded research was Open Science: A National Strategy only required to be made public one year after publication, prompting the White House Office of to Meet Pressing Challenges Science & Technology Policy to ask publishers to A “status quo” approach to scientific publishing lift 12-month embargoes on COVID-related science impedes the United States’ ability to address current in March 2020. Waiting an entire year to make and future national challenges such as climate change, COVID-related research public would have cost economic competitiveness, public health, and racial more lives, and the continuation of any embargo equity. The impact of open science on COVID-19 period on taxpayer-funded research creates a provides the federal government with an opportunity to dangerous precedent we cannot afford.
    [Show full text]
  • A NEW EYE on COASTS Celebrating 2 Award-Winning Years of Eos Magazine and Eos.Org
    VOL. 98 NO. 1 JAN 2017 Antarctic Trek for Space Weather Partnering Academia and the Military Earth & Space Science News Whisker-like New Mineral Discovered A NEW EYE ON COASTS Celebrating 2 Award-Winning Years of Eos Magazine and Eos.org Nearly 1 Million Online Readers An International Readership Spanning 196 Countries Multiple Awards from Association TRENDS and Association Media & Publishing VOL. 97 NO. 23 1 DEC 2016 VOL. 96 NO. 4 1 MAR 2015 VOL. 96 NO. 13 15 JUL 2015 Earth & Space Science News Earth & Space Science News HowHowHow Ready ReadyReady is Isis Los Los Angeles Angeles LEARNING Sonar Data forfor thethe NextNext “ GEOSCIENCE from the Water Column “Big OneOne”? Tracking Global ? BY DOING Landslide Hazards ”? Students Launch High-Altitude Balloons Monitoring Colombia’s GEOSCIENCE Slumbering Volcanoes Seismic Hazard Assessment Lab Simulates Science Fares Well in U.S. Solar Eruptions Gender Parity Proposed Federal Budget Magnetic Islands Caterpillar-Like Motion in Space of the Greenland Ice Sheet New for 2017: You’ll receive Eos magazine once a month, and now you’ll enjoy More Content: More features, news, and Research Spotlights More Depth: Special issues on important and emerging topics The satisfaction of a reduced carbon footprint And, as always, you can read articles free online as soon as they are published on Eos.org or by adding Eos.org to mobile apps like SmartNews and Flipboard. Earth & Space Science News Contents JANUARY 2017 PROJECT UPDATE VOLUME 98, ISSUE 1 14 Space Weather from a Southern Point of View A recently completed instrument array monitors geospace from the Antarctic end of Earth’s magnetic field lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy
    Lessons from the History of UK Science Policy August 2019 2 Science Policy History Foreword The British Academy is the UK’s national body for the humanities and social sciences. Our purpose is to deepen understanding of people, societies and cultures, enabling everyone to learn, progress and prosper. The Academy inspires, supports and promotes outstanding achievement and global advances in the humanities and social sciences. We are a fellowship of over 1000 of the most outstanding academics, an international community of leading experts focused on people, culture and societies, and are the voice for the humanities and social sciences.1 The British Academy aims to use insights from the past and the present to help shape the future, by influencing policy and affecting change in the UK and overseas. Given this, the Academy is well-placed to bring humanities and social science insight from the past into policymaking for the present and the future. One way to do this is in using historical insights to inform policymaking – ‘looking back to look forward’. To support these efforts, the Academy’s public policy team in collaboration with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, has undertaken a new programme of work on policy histories. The policy histories series develop historical analyses for individual policy areas. These analyses are used to provide: • a structured, rigorous and objective account of the history of a given policy area and the significance of key milestones in context, • an informed basis for analysis and insights from the timelines as well as dialogue and discussion about what history can tell us about the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Innovation: the Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity
    Science and Innovation: The Under-Fueled Engine of Prosperity JULY 14, 2021 AUTHOR Benjamin F. Jones* ABSTRACT Science and innovation are central to human progress and national economic success. Currently, the United States invests 2.8% of GDP in research and development, which is supported by a range of public policies. This paper asks whether the United States invests enough. To answer that question, the conceptual case for government intervention and skepticism about that case are reviewed. The paper then turns to systematic evidence, including the very latest evidence, regarding the operation of the science and innovation system and its social returns. This evidence suggests a clear answer: We massively underinvest in science and innovation, with implications for our standards of living, health, national competitiveness, and capacity to respond to crisis. * Kellogg School of Management and National Bureau of Economic Research. Email: [email protected]. 1. Introduction Scientific and technological advances have long been recognized as engines of economic growth and rising prosperity. The fruits of these advances—instantaneous global communications, vaccines, airplanes, heart surgery, computers, skyscrapers, industrial robots, on-demand entertainment, to name a few—might seem almost magical to our ancestors from not-too-many generations ago. The power of this progress has been broadly evident since the Industrial Revolution and was recognized at the time, including by political leaders. As the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli noted in 1873, “How much has happened in these fifty years … I am thinking of those revolutions of science which … have changed the position and prospects of mankind more than all the conquests and all the codes and all the legislators that ever lived.” Disraeli was talking of things like the steam engine, the telegraph, and textile manufacturing.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Issue Proposal: Replicability in Cognitive Science Editors: Brent
    Special Issue proposal: Replicability in Cognitive Science Editors: Brent Strickland and Helen De Cruz Invited authors: Edouard Machery, Deborah Mayo Open Call for papers We are inviting submissions to a special issue on the issue of replicability and systematic error in cognitive science in the Review of Philosophy and Psychology (deadline November 1st, 2017). One of the primary missions of the Review of Philosophy and Psychology is to provide philosophically and theoretically insightful analyses of issues related to the fields of cognitive science and experimental psychology. Currently, authors in these areas are doing some thorough soul searching as they attempt to understand why the published results of psychology studies fail to replicate as often as they should (OSF, 2015). In particular, the OSF (2015) provided evidence that roughly 60% of all studies published in top psychology journals fail to replicate perfectly and 30% fail to replicate even approximately. These and related findings have led to a number of publications, news articles, and blog posts that attempt to (i) assess the extent to which there actually are systematic problems in how psychological science is being carried out (ii) understand the root causes of such problems and (iii) offer practical solutions for systematically improving scientific output. Philosophers have been notably absent in these discussions. This is a missed opportunity, as philosophers of science, mind, or even economics can offer a valuable perspective on these issues, as well as philosophers versed into experimental methods more broadly. To encourage philosophical engagement with the questions of replicability and systematic in cognitive science, we are inviting contributions to this special issue.
    [Show full text]